In a study released by the International Journal of Biological Sciences, analyzing the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, researchers found that agricultural giant Monsanto's GM corn is linked to organ damage in rats.

According to the study, which was summarized by Rady Ananda at Food Freedom, "Three varieties of Monsanto's GM corn - Mon 863, insecticide-producing Mon 810, and Roundup® herbicide-absorbing NK 603 - were approved for consumption by US, European and several other national food safety authorities."

Monsanto gathered its own crude statistical data after conducting a 90-day study, even though chronic problems can rarely be found after 90 days, and concluded that the corn was safe for consumption. The stamp of approval may have been premature, however.

In the conclusion of the IJBS study, researchers wrote:

"Effects were mostly concentrated in kidney and liver function, the two major diet detoxification organs, but in detail differed with each GM type. In addition, some effects on heart, adrenal, spleen and blood cells were also frequently noted. As there normally exists sex differences in liver and kidney metabolism, the highly statistically significant disturbances in the function of these organs, seen between male and female rats, cannot be dismissed as biologically insignificant as has been proposed by others. We therefore conclude that our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity....These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown."

Monsanto has immediately responded to the study, stating that the research is "based on faulty analytical methods and reasoning and do not call into question the safety findings for these products."

The IJBS study's author Gilles-Eric Séralini responded to the Monsanto statement on the blog, Food Freedom, "Our study contradicts Monsanto conclusions because Monsanto systematically neglects significant health effects in mammals that are different in males and females eating GMOs, or not proportional to the dose. This is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health. This is the major conclusion revealed by our work, the only careful reanalysis of Monsanto crude statistical data."

Texan for Gore - December 28, 2011 04:15 PM (GMT)

It's good to see that some countries put safety above monied interest.

On January 31, family farmers will take part in the first phase of a court case filed to protect farmers from genetic trespass by Monsanto’s GMO seed, which contaminates organic and non-GMO farmer’s crops and opens them up to abusive lawsuits. In the past two decades, Monsanto’s seed monopoly has grown so powerful that they control the genetics of nearly 90% of five major commodity crops including corn, soybeans, cotton, canola and sugar beets.

In many cases farmers are forced to stop growing certain crops to avoid genetic contamination and potential lawsuits. Between 1997 and 2010, Monsanto admits to filing 144 lawsuits against America’s family farmers, while settling another 700 out of court for undisclosed amounts. Due to these aggressive lawsuits, Monsanto has created an atmosphere of fear in rural America and driven dozens of farmers into bankruptcy. Please join us in standing up for family farmers everywhere against Monsanto's abusive seed monopoly.

Biotech giant Monsanto has been declared the Worst Company of 2011 by NaturalSociety for threatening both human health and the environment. The leader in genetically modified seeds and crops, Monsanto is currently responsible for 90 percent of the genetically engineered seed on the United States market. Outside of GM seeds, Monsanto is also the creator of the best-selling herbicide Roundup, which has spawned over 120 million hectacres of herbicide-resistant superweeds while damaging much of the soil. Despite hard evidence warning against the amplified usage of genetically modified crops, biopesticides, and herbicides, Monsanto continues to disregard all warning signs.

In a powerful review of 19 studies analyzing the dangers of GMO crops such as corn and soybeans, researchers revealed some shocking information regarding the safety of these popular food staples. Researchers found that consumption of GMO corn or soybeans may lead to significant organ disruptions in rats and mice – particularly in the liver and kidneys. This is particularly concerning due to the fact that 93 percent of U.S. soybeans are known to be genetically modified. Ignoring this evidence, Monsanto continues to expand their genetic manipulation.

Monsanto’s Genetic Manipulation of NatureOutside of genetically modifying crops, Monsanto has also created genetically modified crops containing Bt. Bt is a toxin incorporated in GMO crops that are intended to kill different insects, however Bt usage has subsequently spawned insect populations which are resistant to the biopesticide. After being exposed to Bt, many insect populations actually mutated to resist the biopesticide. So far at least 8 insect populations have developed resistance, with 2 populations resistant to Bt sprays and at least 6 species resistant to Bt crops as a whole. Farmers are therefore forced to use even more pesticides to combat the resistant bugs.

What is the answer to this problem, according to Monsanto? To further genetically modify the Bt crop to make it a super-pesticide, killing the resistant insects.

Tests, however, have concluded that further modified Bt toxin crop provided ‘little or no advantage’ in tackling the insects, despite extensive time and funding put into the research. It seems that Monsanto’s solution to everything is to further modify it into oblivion, even in the face of evidence proving this method to be highly inefficient. The research shows that this will undoubtedly lead to insects that are resistant to the most potent forms of Bt and other modified toxins, resulting in the use of even more excessive amounts of pesticides in order to combat pests.

Superweeds Infesting Over 120 Million Hectacres of FarmlandThanks to Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide Roundup, farms across the world are experiencing the emergence of herbicide-resistant superweeds. The heavily resistant weeds have an immunity to glyphosate, an herbicide that Roundup contains. These resistant weeds currently cover over 4.5 million hectares in the United States alone, though experts estimate the world-wide land coverage to have reached at least 120 million hectares by 2010. The appearance of these superweeds is being increasingly documented in Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Europe and South Africa.

Of course, once again, the resistant weeds are so resistant to roundup that they require excessive amounts of herbicides. It is no surprise that the company is refusing to accept responsibility for the escalating cost of combating the weeds, stating that “Roundup agricultural warranties will not cover the failure to control glyphosate resistant weed populations.”

The World Says No to MonsantoFrance, Hungary, and Peru are a few of the countries that have decided to take a stand against Monsanto. Hungary actually went as far as to destroy 1000 acres of maize found to have been grown with genetically modified seeds, according to Hungary deputy state secretary of the Ministry of Rural Development Lajos Bognar. Peru has also taken a stand for health freedom, passing a monumental 10 year ban on genetically modified foods. Amazingly, Peru’s Plenary Session of the Congress made the decision despite previous governmental pushes for GM legalization. The known and unknown dangers of GMO crops seem to supersede even executive-level governmental directives.

Anibal Huerta, President of Peru’s Agrarian Commission, said the ban was needed to prevent the ”danger that can arise from the use of biotechnology.”

France is the latest nation to say no to Monsanto’s GM corn maize, even in light of an overturned ban. It all began when France’s State Council overturned the ban on Monsanto’s GMO maize stating that it was not sufficiently justified. The organization then attempted to justify its decision by saying that the government did not give enough evidence to justify a ban. Under law, an EU country can only unilaterally ban a genetically modified strain if it can scientifically prove it is a risk to the health of humans, animals, or the integrity of the environment.

Even after the ban was overturned, it surfaced that French legislatures were planning to launch new restrictions regarding the use of Monsanto’s 810 maize on French soil. Even Nicolas Sarkozy, the current president of the French Republic, voiced his opposition to Monsanto’s GMO maize:

“The French government keeps and will keep its opposition against the cultivation of the Monsanto 810 maize on our soil,” Sarkozy said.

Worst Company of 2011In nominating Monsanto the Worst Company of 2011 we are hoping to raise awareness over the threat that Monsanto poses to human health and the environment. Genetically modified organisms will only continue to threaten all living creatures if not stopped. It is through spreading the word that real change will come about, and declaring Monsanto the Worst Company of 2011 is a great way to highlight all of their reckless actions.

Movement is calling for protests to support 60 family farmers, small seed businesses, organizations challenging Monsanto's patents on genetically modified seed- Common Dreams staff The Occupy Wall Street movement has highlighted the tremendous corporate greed and power that has benefited the 1%.

One company helping the 1% is Monsanto. Food Democracy Now! writes that:

Monsanto’s seed monopoly has grown so powerful that they control the genetics of nearly 90% of five major commodity crops including corn, soybeans, cotton, canola and sugar beets.

In many cases farmers are forced to stop growing certain crops to avoid genetic contamination and potential lawsuits. Between 1997 and 2010, Monsanto admits to filing 144 lawsuits against America’s family farmers, while settling another 700 out of court for undisclosed amounts. Due to these aggressive lawsuits, Monsanto has created an atmosphere of fear in rural America and driven dozens of farmers into bankruptcy.

Today, the Occupy movement is seizing the moment to highlight this corporate power.

The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) writes:

On January 23, over 20,000 people poured into the streets of Berlin to say that they have had enough of industrial agriculture. The demands made in Germany can be heard all over the world starting with fair treatment of farmers and consumers, safe food, an end to food speculation and a respect for nature and the welfare of animals.

[Today], in New York City, the Occupy Wall Street movement is calling for protests to support 60 family farmers, small and family-owned seed businesses, and agricultural organizations that are challenging Monsanto's patents on genetically modified seed in federal court.

Like the Germans, it time for us to say, “We’ve had enough!” of Monsanto’s agriculture. From super weeds to pest resistance in corn, genetically modified seeds have failed. Now Monsanto is turning to even more dangerous products with new varieties that will only increase the amount of herbicides in the environment.

At the heart of industrial agriculture is a long running conflict between corporations and farmers on who will control food production. Occupy Wall Street has come out on the side of farmers and all who eat to say, “We’ve had enough!”

Writing on the Care2, Beth Buczynski adds this background:

On January 31st, family farmers from across the county will take part in the first phase of the OSGATA et al. v. Monsanto court case filed to protect farmers from genetic trespass by Monsanto’s genetically modified (GMO) seed, which can contaminate organic and non-GMO farmers’ crops and open them up to abusive lawsuits.

As a result of aggressive lawsuits against farmers with contaminated crops, Monsanto has created an atmosphere of fear in rural America and driven dozens of farmers into bankruptcy.

But farmers are fighting back! The Federal District Court judge has agreed to hear oral arguments in this landmark case to decide whether or not this case will move forward.

Occupy Wall Street Food Justice, Occupy Big Food and Food Democracy Now! will assemble in solidarity with farmers on the front lines of the struggle against corporate domination of our food system.

earthmother - January 31, 2012 08:28 PM (GMT)

I know we had a thread on this elsewhere, but I might as well bring it back into play here with these articles TfG has posted. I know some here said that it shouldn't matter that Obama was appointing anyone from Monsanto to the FDA. The argument was that the best, most qualified people with the most knowledge should be put in such positions. At the time, I backed down from my opposition of the appointments and admitted that yes, until the person is guilty of something at the FDA, the appointment is acceptable. But ya know what? I'm coming back around to my original position.

Anyone who was high up in Monsanto obviously drinks Monsanto's Kool-Aid (and what a vile mix that is). They have to be on board with genetically altered seed, herbicides, the company's policy of squashing small farmers, etc. Monsanto has a long history of pushing products on American farmers and consumers that are questionable at best, and harmful at worst.

Doesn't it stand to reason that a person who was high up in Monsanto's chain of command goes along with genetically-altered seed, harmful pesticides and herbicides, and the company's policy of rolling over small farmers? I don't think it would be possible to argue otherwise. And given that . . . well, I guess people here won't allow me to call it a fact . . . but given that very logical assumption . . . isn't such a person NOT someone we want high up in the agency that oversees the safety of our food, drugs, and chemicals? Unless the person left Monsanto because of objections to the company's policies, that person is NOT someone I want at the FDA.

You can argue that it's not right, not fair, not reasonable all you want. A person who believes that chemicals that initially promote the ability to grow mass quantities of food for the big farming industry but that ultimately wreak havoc on the ecosystem and health of humans, animals, insects, and plants is not a wise choice, IMO, for having any influence on the FDA.

Texan for Gore - February 1, 2012 03:18 AM (GMT)

I wholeheartedly agree with everything you said, EM. And to be fair, I think the placing of someone who used to work for a given special interest industry - such as biotech, health insurance, big pharma or big oil to an administration position has been common practice for a good while now, at the expense of the American people as well as the same thing going on in other countries.. That's what I mean by not wanting someone in office who is going to continue the status quo. And the more I read, the more I learn, and there's a lot of frightening stuff out there - not to sound alarmist - but it's amazing how things going on with Monsanto are the same kinds of things that go on in the oil and gas industry, and others.

I encourage people to read up on the history of Monsanto, how they are gaining more and more control over the food industry. And today, I read an article at DU about this:

"Water industry, World Bank pilot new scheme to drive public water into private hands"

I mean, it seems like all these different corporations want to control things that we depend on to survive and are taking away the livelihood of so many. It's something to think about.

Anyway, Obama is only one in all of this. Many in our system are responsible for allowing these kind of travesties to happen. But I certainly expected Obama to be different, hence all my past complaints.

A lot of these issues are too important to look at it from a partisan standpoint, though I know we are in better hands with a democrat in office. It's just that both sides are making these kinds of appointments and allowing big corporations to get away with so much and at our expense. When does it end?

ReElectAlGore2016 - February 1, 2012 03:20 AM (GMT)

Remember the on going fuss some people made about vaccinations being bad for people, and using data that was proven 100 times over on a quack doctor (Wakefield) who was proven to be a quack so many times, yet people stopped getting all vaccinations because of fear of what Wakefield was saying(even though it was proven false).

It has now brought back diseases eradicated for decades worldwide, and led to many people dying and children too because of fraudelent data.(let alone putting all other kids and pregnant women in danger too).

Whenever having conversations like this, it makes me wonder-Why are cigarettes legal and even in existence? Known killing machines, that are even worse for 2nd and 3rd hand smoke being bad, yet people complain about rights being abusedfor rules saying one can't smoke??? (let alone cell phones, the same).

A two-year-old Food and Drug Administration appointment is stirring up online protests once more.

Activists in Germany protest a court decision to ban a type of genetically modified maize. (Nigel Treblin - AFP/GETTY IMAGES) In 2009, President Obama appointed Michael Taylor as a senior adviser for the FDA. Consumer groups protested the appointment because Taylor had formerly served as a vice president for Monsanto, the controversial agricultural multinational at the forefront of genetically modified food.

In recent days, a petition calling for the former Monsanto VP’s ouster is gaining steam.

“President Obama, I oppose your appointment of Michael Taylor,” the petition on Signon.org reads. “Taylor is the same person who was Food Safety Czar at the FDA when genetically modified organisms were allowed into the U.S. food supply without undergoing a single test to determine their safety or risks. This is a travesty.”

Over the weekend, the petition was signed by thousands of people. At this writing, it has around 60,000 signatures of its 75,000 goal.

Requests for comment from Monsanto and the FDA were not immediately returned.

Signees of the petition argue that Monsanto should not have influence at the FDA because it will hurt farmers and threaten plants and animals. They cite scientific research that has found genetically modified foods could be a cause for chronic illnesses or cancer in the U.S.

The petition was launched by Frederick Ravid, a financial analyst in Atlanta who also has a blog devoted to spirituality.

The petition calls Taylor’s appointment an example of a “fox watching the hen house.”

Taylor’s position, which is currently deputy commissioner for foods at the FDA, includes ensuring that food labels contain clear and accurate information, overseeing strategy for food safety and planning new food safety legislation. He is the first individual to hold the position.

Before he joined the FDA, Taylor was the vice president for Public Policy at Monsanto from 1998 to 2001. He has since worked for the FDA in a number of capacities, most recently returning to the administration as senior adviser to the commissioner in July 2009.

Taylor is quoted on the FDA Web site as saying he looked forward to “working in new ways ... to tackle the important challenges – and the unprecedented opportunities – we currently face.”

When Taylor’s appointment was announced, it was criticized by consumers and consumer advocates across the U.S. One such critical consumer advocate, Jeffrey Smith, who campaigns against genetically modified foods, wrote on his blog at the time: “The person who may be responsible for more food-related illness and death than anyone in history has just been made the US food safety czar. This is no joke.”

Smith cited as problematic Taylor’s prior involvement in overseeing the policy of Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH/rbST). Milk from injected cows has been a controversial topic, Smith points out, with many medical organizations and hospitals speaking out against it.

Monsanto has been the focus of dozens of protests for a number of its policies over the years, including this TED talk from an 11-year-old:

On Monday, Monsanto announced that it was giving up plans to sell its insect-resistant maize in France, Farmers Weekly reports. The move was seen as another major blow for genetically modified food in Europe, where resistance has been fierce, with six EU countries banning the cultivation of genetically modified maize.

earthmother - February 1, 2012 03:52 AM (GMT)

QUOTE (ReElectAlGore2016 @ Feb 1 2012, 03:20 AM)

Remember the on going fuss some people made about vaccinations being bad for people, and using data that was proven 100 times over on a quack doctor (Wakefield) who was proven to be a quack so many times, yet people stopped getting all vaccinations because of fear of what Wakefield was saying(even though it was proven false).

This is not some quack thing, Clay. Monsanto's products (and other corporations' as well) have already harmed wildlife and insect populations with their pesticides and herbicides, and there is evidence that these substances also harm humans, as do so-called Frankenfoods. Have we forgotten Rachel Carson already?

I remember a few years back when both bee and butterfly populations were decimated in many countries and the suspected culprit was genetically-modified crops. And there's no question that mass use of pesticides and herbicides is bad for the environment, insects, animals, and humans. This is fact, not fiction.

I live in New Jersey, the Garden State. One thin row of houses separates me from hundreds of acres of farms, farms that regularly spray huge quantities of pesticides and herbicides. This is still a somewhat rural area, and many people still have wells. One by one, people's wells are being shut down because the agricultural chemicals are leaching into the ground water. Right next door to my house there was a commercial rose grower until eight years ago. The rose farm moved and the township bought up the property to use as a baseball field. Can I tell you how many times they've had to strip another layer of soil and bring in new topsoil because when the soil was tested it was full of lead and arsenic (things you don't really want blowing around in the dust where children are playing). Lead and arsenic are both by-products of chemicals that are used in growing roses because they are so prone to insects and diseases (which is why I don't grow roses anymore, as much as I love them).

When I was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2004, every time I turned around another woman (in our very small town of 2,500 people) was being diagnosed also. The oncologist one of my friends went to in a nearby town was investigating this abnormal cluster of breast-cancer cases (there was also an abnormally high rate of stomach cancer in our town at the time). He believed that it had to do with our proximity to farms using all these chemicals. I'm not sure if a real causal relationship was ever established, but it does make you wonder.

We can't afford to ignore the damage caused by agricultural chemicals and genetically-modified foods. Our health and the health of the planet are at stake. We don't want another Silent Spring.

Texan for Gore - February 1, 2012 04:03 AM (GMT)

That's terrible, EM. While it's hard to know how much impact those pesticides are having, it certainly is suspect. And cancer is one of those things that they say GMO's and these pesticides can cause. I was just watching this video and it's disturbing, to say the least and something to think about. Btw, if you use twitter and do a search on Monsanto, the tweets are burning up with info. on Monsanto, I guess particularly today since the farmers' case against them.

Before he joined the FDA, Taylor was the vice president for Public Policy at Monsanto from 1998 to 2001.

So all this controversy is about someone who worked for Monsanto for 3 years over a decade ago.

A quick Google search found that over the past 20 years Mr. Taylor has spent more time working for the FDA and USDA than he has for Monsanto.

And before rejoining the FDA in 2009, he was not working for Monsanto but was a Research Professor of Health Policy at the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services as well as a Senior Fellow at Resources for the Future, a non-profit organization that is researching ways to fight famine in Africa and contributed to the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to fight global warming.

This is the same kind of demonization of an individual using half truths, selected facts and guilt by association tactics that is employed by FAUX news and the right wing. It is despicable and those on the left who have engaged in it should be ashamed of themselves. They shown that they are no better the likes of Rush, O'Reilly and Hannity.

Wayne in WA State - February 1, 2012 06:24 PM (GMT)

I have concerns about pesticides but the the scare over vaccines was indeed deliberate fraud that frightened millions and raises everyone's risk by reducing the overall vaccination rate.

As a parent of an autistic child I am particularly outraged by this vaccine scare mongering.

Texan for Gore - February 1, 2012 06:46 PM (GMT)

Please, spare us the talking points, James. What is shameful is those that will defend our politicians at all costs, regardless of their actions or who they appoint to positions that are SUPPOSED to look out for the best interest of the people - NOT the corporations.

Michael Taylor started his early years as an attorney for King & Spalding, who represented Monsanto. This was in the 80's. In 1991, he went to the FDA as Deputy Commission of Policy. He then went to the USDA as Administrator of Food Safety and Inspection Service. He then had another stint at King & Spalding, then went to Monsanto as their VP of Public Policy.

Sure, he's been a professor and has done some research at George Washington University before returning to the FDA in 2009. I hadn't heard of his work as Senior Fellow at Resources for the Future, but as far as helping to fight famine in Africa, why don't you do some reseach on the Green Revolution in Africa, which mentions the use of pesticides and its correlations of higher cancer rates there. So, GMOs are once again at work. Preventing famine is a good thing, but causing other serious health problems is not.

I've seen nothing to indicate that Michael Taylor's motives have been altruistic. It's simply naive or delusional to think that his bouncing back and forth from King & Spalding to the FDA & USDA to Monsanto and back again to the FDA is not the equivalent of the fox watching the hen house.

Texan for Gore - February 1, 2012 06:52 PM (GMT)

QUOTE (Wayne in WA State @ Feb 1 2012, 12:24 PM)

I have concerns about pesticides but the the scare over vaccines was indeed deliberate fraud that frightened millions and raises everyone's risk by reducing the overall vaccination rate.

As a parent of an autistic child I am particularly outraged by this vaccine scare mongering.

Wayne, I am sorry to hear about your autistic child.

Clay is the one who brought up vaccinations though. This isn't about that and I'm not against vaccinations. This is about Monsanto and the hold they have over our government policies and food safety. This isn't some kind of scare tactic. You can check it out for yourself.

Wayne in WA State - February 1, 2012 07:40 PM (GMT)

I'm not defending Monsanto. The mention of vaccines just hit a raw nerve for me. I know some people who are still not protecting their children with vaccines because of this one man's false accusations that spread around the world. :Y:

earthmother - February 1, 2012 08:13 PM (GMT)

Wayne, I, too, am very sorry to learn about your child. I had no idea. I know several people who have autistic children, and it is so difficult.

Wayne in WA State - February 2, 2012 08:30 AM (GMT)

Fortunately my son's autism is not the severe kind. We were able to get him speech therapy fairly early for a year or two and that helped. He is in regular school and getting pretty good grades. It does affect his communication style and friendships and he does get teased at school a bit. He doesn't get bullied too much because at 13 years old he's about 6ft tall.

Now my daughter with bi-polar disorder, that's a challenge that just keeps on giving.

:!:

ReElectAlGore2016 - February 2, 2012 08:36 AM (GMT)

I know there are 3 or 4 separate issues in texan4gore's different posts

I must say I agree (again) with James on the issue of Taylor of the FDA

This six degrees of separation and making a bad person out of just about everybody because they are associated with or worked with or went to a bathroom stall once next to someone who might not be good, reeks of conspiracy theorybreadcrumbs and mass Joe McCarthy'ing people

Jees, when Bush was president during Katrina, because he was OVER HIS HEAD,that guy Brownie was proven to be not qualified for his position and it was onehe never should have had.

Obama comes in, and voila, puts able minded QUALIFIED people in positionsand conspiracy theorists and the rightwing pounces.

WHO would one want hired?

pretty soon no one will want to work in DC for fear of having a conspiracy theorist after them. (This M.O. is so typical of Karl Rove btw and Rush Limbaugh...it feeds them, to have unqualified people around, so much easier for them.

(as an aside- When Bush knowing that she would never pass even by republicansnominated Harriet Miers, trivializing the US Supreme Court, he slyly got perhapsthe worst justice on the bench, Sam Alito on the bench, knowing its one take down a time, not two. (and it also was able to say, well, he nominated a woman, so he felt no need to nominate a second.)

All these things, just another reason when someone says Bush and the democrat are one and the same, its good time to spit in their face and tell them to get lost.

(btw-off topic but current- so Trump is backing Newt today...how convienient...the other day he refused to do so, but was asked if he backed someone wouldthat mean he himself wasn't running independent...only as long as the person he backed is running competively)...so Trump backs the loser Newt, and can still come in later).

JamesAquila - February 2, 2012 01:44 PM (GMT)

QUOTE (Wayne in WA State @ Feb 2 2012, 03:30 AM)

Fortunately my son's autism is not the severe kind. We were able to get him speech therapy fairly early for a year or two and that helped. He is in regular school and getting pretty good grades. It does affect his communication style and friendships and he does get teased at school a bit. He doesn't get bullied too much because at 13 years old he's about 6ft tall.

Now my daughter with bi-polar disorder, that's a challenge that just keeps on giving.

:!:

Sorry to hear about your son and daughter. Lucky for them they have you for a Dad. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help.

earthmother - February 2, 2012 06:00 PM (GMT)

Wayne, you certainly have your challenges. I think I knew about your daughter, but not your son. And as for him being bullied, I'm not surprised. Kids can be heartless. My son was bullied so badly just because he wore glasses starting at age seven and was good at music (and not such a great athlete) that he ended up in counseling in college because he had such problems being comfortable with his peers. Fortunately, the therapist did an unusual form of therapy that involves rapid-eye movements and bringing yourself back to the traumatic events. It was developed for use with people with post-traumatic-stress-syndrome. In any case, we were dubious, and it was very difficult for him to go through, but I'm happy to say it worked wonders. He is extremely sociable now and comfortable with people of all ages, and what a musician (and not a bad athlete). Of course, it helps that he's now 24 years old and also six feet tall. In any case, I'm glad to hear your son's case is not too bad, although raising kids has certainly been something else for you than it's been for others of us. I wish you continued patience and success with them.

As for the other issues here about Monsanta, etc., that I wanted to address, I just realized I'm going to be late for an appt.!

Later . . . :wacko:

earthmother - February 2, 2012 07:38 PM (GMT)

QUOTE (ReElectAlGore2016 @ Feb 2 2012, 08:36 AM)

This six degrees of separation and making a bad person out of just about everybody because they are associated with or worked with or went to a bathroom stall once next to someone who might not be good, reeks of conspiracy theorybreadcrumbs and mass Joe McCarthy'ing people

There are zero degrees of separation between Michael Taylor and Monsanto and efforts to smooth the way for GM foods as well as growth-hormone-infused milk in this country via the FDA. I hadn't taken the time before to educate myself about Taylor, his role as Monsanto's attorney and later as its Vice President, and his work at the FDA in the early '90s and now. Here's the problem: It's fine to say that a person shouldn't be judged until he's actively done something you don't like in his current position. I gather that's what people here are saying, that Michael Taylor is innocent until proven guilty. But he is guilty. And he's guilty not only by association, as Clay is saying, but by his actions. Please read the article below:

The person who may be responsible for more food-related illness and death than anyone in history has just been made the US food safety czar. This is no joke.

Here's the back story.

When FDA scientists were asked to weigh in on what was to become the most radical and potentially dangerous change in our food supply -- the introduction of genetically modified (GM) foods -- secret documents now reveal that the experts were very concerned. Memo after memo described toxins, new diseases, nutritional deficiencies, and hard-to-detect allergens. They were adamant that the technology carried "serious health hazards," and required careful, long-term research, including human studies, before any genetically modified organisms (GMOs) could be safely released into the food supply.

But the biotech industry had rigged the game so that neither science nor scientists would stand in their way. They had placed their own man in charge of FDA policy and he wasn't going to be swayed by feeble arguments related to food safety. No, he was going to do what corporations had done for decades to get past these types of pesky concerns. He was going to lie.

Dangerous Food Safety Lies

When the FDA was constructing their GMO policy in 1991-2, their scientists were clear that gene-sliced foods were significantly different and could lead to "different risks" than conventional foods. But official policy declared the opposite, claiming that the FDA knew nothing of significant differences, and declared GMOs substantially equivalent.

This fiction became the rationale for allowing GM foods on the market without any required safety studies whatsoever! The determination of whether GM foods were safe to eat was placed entirely in the hands of the companies that made them -- companies like Monsanto, which told us that the PCBs, DDT, and Agent Orange were safe.

GMOs were rushed onto our plates in 1996. Over the next nine years, multiple chronic illnesses in the US nearly doubled -- from 7% to 13%. Allergy-related emergency room visits doubled between 1997 and 2002 while food allergies, especially among children, skyrocketed. We also witnessed a dramatic rise in asthma, autism, obesity, diabetes, digestive disorders, and certain cancers.

In January of this year, Dr. P. M. Bhargava, one of the world's top biologists, told me that after reviewing 600 scientific journals, he concluded that the GM foods in the US are largely responsible for the increase in many serious diseases.

In May, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine concluded that animal studies have demonstrated a causal relationship between GM foods and infertility, accelerated aging, dysfunctional insulin regulation, changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system, and immune problems such as asthma, allergies, and inflammation

In July, a report by eight international experts determined that the flimsy and superficial evaluations of GMOs by both regulators and GM companies "systematically overlook the side effects" and significantly underestimate "the initial signs of diseases like cancer and diseases of the hormonal, immune, nervous and reproductive systems, among others."

The Fox Guarding the Chickens

If GMOs are indeed responsible for massive sickness and death, then the individual who oversaw the FDA policy that facilitated their introduction holds a uniquely infamous role in human history. That person is Michael Taylor. He had been Monsanto's attorney before becoming policy chief at the FDA. Soon after, he became Monsanto's vice president and chief lobbyist.

This month Michael Taylor became the senior advisor to the commissioner of the FDA. He is now America's food safety czar. What have we done?

The Milk Man Cometh

While Taylor was at the FDA in the early 90's, he also oversaw the policy regarding Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH/rbST) -- injected into cows to increase milk supply.

The milk from injected cows has more pus, more antibiotics, more bovine growth hormone, and most importantly, more insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). IGF-1 is a huge risk factor for common cancers and its high levels in this drugged milk is why so many medical organizations and hospitals have taken stands against rbGH. A former Monsanto scientist told me that when three of his Monsanto colleagues evaluated rbGH safety and discovered the elevated IGF-1 levels, even they refused to drink any more milk -- unless it was organic and therefore untreated.

Government scientists from Canada evaluated the FDA's approval of rbGH and concluded that it was a dangerous facade. The drug was banned in Canada, as well as Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. But it was approved in the US while Michael Taylor was in charge. His drugged milk might have caused a significant rise in US cancer rates. Additional published evidence also implicates rbGH in the high rate of fraternal twins in the US.

Taylor also determined that milk from injected cows did not require any special labeling. And as a gift to his future employer Monsanto, he wrote a white paper suggesting that if companies ever had the audacity to label their products as not using rbGH, they should also include a disclaimer stating that according to the FDA, there is no difference between milk from treated and untreated cows.

Taylor's disclaimer was also a lie. Monsanto's own studies and FDA scientists officially acknowledged differences in the drugged milk. No matter. Monsanto used Taylor's white paper as the basis to successfully sue dairies that labeled their products as rbGH-free.

Will Monsanto's Wolff Also Guard the Chickens?

As consumers learned that rbGH was dangerous, they refused to buy the milk. To keep their customers, a tidal wave of companies has publicly committed to not use the drug and to label their products as such. Monsanto tried unsuccessfully to convince the FDA and FTC to make it illegal for dairies to make rbGH-free claims, so they went to their special friend in Pennsylvania -- Dennis Wolff. As state secretary of agriculture, Wolff unilaterally declared that labeling products rbGH-free was illegal, and that all such labels must be removed from shelves statewide. This would, of course, eliminate the label from all national brands, as they couldn't afford to create separate packaging for just one state.

Fortunately, consumer demand forced Pennsylvania's Governor Ed Rendell to step in and stop Wolff's madness. But Rendell allowed Wolff to take a compromised position that now requires rbGH-free claims to also be accompanied by Taylor's FDA disclaimer on the package.

President Obama is considering Dennis Wolff for the top food safety post at the USDA. Yikes!

Rumor has it that the reason why Pennsylvania's governor is supporting Wolff's appointment is to get him out of the state -- after he "screwed up so badly" with the rbGH decision. Oh great, governor. Thanks.

Ohio Governor Gets Taylor-itus

Ohio not only followed Pennsylvania's lead by requiring Taylor's FDA disclaimer on packaging, they went a step further. They declared that dairies must place that disclaimer on the same panel where rbGH-free claims are made, and even dictated the font size. This would force national brands to re-design their labels and may ultimately dissuade them from making rbGH-free claims at all. The Organic Trade Association and the International Dairy Foods Association filed a lawsuit against Ohio. Although they lost the first court battle, upon appeal, the judge ordered a mediation session that takes place today. Thousands of Ohio citizens have flooded Governor Strickland's office with urgent requests to withdraw the states anti-consumer labeling requirements.

Perhaps the governor has an ulterior motive for pushing his new rules. If he goes ahead with his labeling plans, he might end up with a top appointment in the Obama administration.

As for Taylor's credentials, yes, he's credentialed up the wazoo. But his credentials are ties to a chemical and agribusiness giant that has policies we (I assume most of us here) oppose. Growth hormones in milk? Widespread use of glysophate herbicides? Pesticides? Genetically-modified seed? Some may say that the jury is still out on the harmfulness of these products, but there is already quite a lot of credible evidence to suggest that they are quite harmful. And even if we don't have absolute proof yet of cause and effect, shouldn't we wait until we know these products are really safe (or not) before we introduce them on a large scale to the people of the world?

Because of Taylor's past roles as a lawyer and then lobbyist for Monsanto, we have to assume that he supports Monsanto's products and policies. And if he doesn't support them, then he should say so, and to my knowledge, he has never done that.

But to say that he isn't guilty because thus far in his role at the FDA he hasn't done anything wrong is specious. First of all, to my way of thinking, thus far he has done things wrong. There's quite a bit of evidence that growth hormones given to cows that end up in milk are harmful to humans, particularly to growing children (who, incidentally, also drink the most milk). During his stint at the FDA in the early '90s, Taylor approved the use of Monsanto's growth hormone in cows (that ends up in the milk we drink). He has bounced back and forth among private and public practice, as counsel to the FDA and then representing Monsanto and in public roles at the USDA and FDA (in, I'm sorry to say, the Clinton administration). Here's a synopsis of his c.v.:

QUOTE

Mr. Taylor is a lawyer who began his revolving door adventures as counsel to FDA. He then moved to King & Spalding, a private-sector law firm representing Monsanto, a leading agricultural biotechnology company. In 1991 he returned to the FDA as Deputy Commissioner for Policy, where he was part of the team that issued the agency’s decidedly industry-friendly policy on food biotechnology and that approved the use of Monsanto’s genetically engineered growth hormone in dairy cows. His questionable role in these decisions led to an investigation by the federal General Accounting Office, which eventually exonerated him of all conflict-of-interest charges. In 1994, Mr. Taylor moved to USDA to become administrator of its Food Safety and Inspection Service … After another stint in private legal practice with King & Spalding, Mr. Taylor again joined Monsanto as Vice President for Public Policy in 1998. (“Vice president for public policy” means, of course, chief lobbyist.)

I'm sorry, but it's difficult to look at this and say that Taylor doesn't agree with/approve of the use of agricultural products and methods that are not in the interest of public safety.

If a presidential candidate were running who had these things in his history, would you vote for him? Would you say, oh, well, he's not guilty until he acts on those things as president? Hardly. You would say, and with good reason, that there must be other candidates who would do a better job of looking out for your safety.

I am sure that Michael Taylor knows a good deal about the food supply and food safety. But I'm also sure that Michael Taylor is on board with practices that I'm very opposed to because there's evidence that they're harmful to the health of humans, animals, and the environment.

I would much rather see in the FDA a person who doesn't support the use of growth-hormones in cows, rampant use of harmful pesticides and herbicides, and genetically-modified seed.

I'm just sayin' . . .

JamesAquila - February 3, 2012 03:01 PM (GMT)

QUOTE (earthmother @ Feb 2 2012, 02:59 PM)

As for Taylor's credentials, yes, he's credentialed up the wazoo. But his credentials are ties to a chemical and agribusiness giant that has policies we (I assume most of us here) oppose. Growth hormones in milk? Widespread use of glysophate herbicides? Pesticides? Genetically-modified seed? Some may say that the jury is still out on the harmfulness of these products, but there is already quite a lot of credible evidence to suggest that they are quite harmful. And even if we don't have absolute proof yet of cause and effect, shouldn't we wait until we know these products are really safe (or not) before we introduce them on a large scale to the people of the world?

Because of Taylor's past roles as a lawyer and then lobbyist for Monsanto, we have to assume that he supports Monsanto's products and policies. And if he doesn't support them, then he should say so, and to my knowledge, he has never done that.

But to say that he isn't guilty because thus far in his role at the FDA he hasn't done anything wrong is specious. First of all, to my way of thinking, thus far he has done things wrong. There's quite a bit of evidence that growth hormones given to cows that end up in milk are harmful to humans, particularly to growing children (who, incidentally, also drink the most milk). During his stint at the FDA in the early '90s, Taylor approved the use of Monsanto's growth hormone in cows (that ends up in the milk we drink). He has bounced back and forth among private and public practice, as counsel to the FDA and then representing Monsanto and in public roles at the USDA and FDA (in, I'm sorry to say, the Clinton administration). Here's a synopsis of his c.v.:

QUOTE

Mr. Taylor is a lawyer who began his revolving door adventures as counsel to FDA. He then moved to King & Spalding, a private-sector law firm representing Monsanto, a leading agricultural biotechnology company. In 1991 he returned to the FDA as Deputy Commissioner for Policy, where he was part of the team that issued the agency’s decidedly industry-friendly policy on food biotechnology and that approved the use of Monsanto’s genetically engineered growth hormone in dairy cows. His questionable role in these decisions led to an investigation by the federal General Accounting Office, which eventually exonerated him of all conflict-of-interest charges. In 1994, Mr. Taylor moved to USDA to become administrator of its Food Safety and Inspection Service … After another stint in private legal practice with King & Spalding, Mr. Taylor again joined Monsanto as Vice President for Public Policy in 1998. (“Vice president for public policy” means, of course, chief lobbyist.)

I'm sorry, but it's difficult to look at this and say that Taylor doesn't agree with/approve of the use of agricultural products and methods that are not in the interest of public safety.

If a presidential candidate were running who had these things in his history, would you vote for him? Would you say, oh, well, he's not guilty until he acts on those things as president? Hardly. You would say, and with good reason, that there must be other candidates who would do a better job of looking out for your safety.

I am sure that Michael Taylor knows a good deal about the food supply and food safety. But I'm also sure that Michael Taylor is on board with practices that I'm very opposed to because there's evidence that they're harmful to the health of humans, animals, and the environment.

I would much rather see in the FDA a person who doesn't support the use of growth-hormones in cows, rampant use of harmful pesticides and herbicides, and genetically-modified seed.

I'm just sayin' . . .

Thanks EM. This is the first solid evidence I've read against Taylor and it is pretty damning. You're right he has done things wrong.

However, I am still disturbed by some of the cherry picked info of some of the earlier articles. The fact is he hasn't been employed by Monsanto in over a decade. Since 2001 when he left Monsanto, he had mainly working in academia, first a professor at the University of Maryland’s School of Medicine and then at George Washington University. To say that he was in a revolving door between the FDA and Monsanto is just inaccurate since he hasn't been connected with Monsanto in over 10 years.

I lot of this reminds me of the demonization of William Ayers by the right. No one would deny that Ayers was a bad guy and did bad things back in the 60s and 70s. But that was years ago and ignores everything he has done since. Today Ayers is no more a radical than any college professor and less of a radical than some the presidential candidates that support he tea party.

earthmother - February 3, 2012 11:52 PM (GMT)

QUOTE (JamesAquila @ Feb 3 2012, 03:01 PM)

Thanks EM. This is the first solid evidence I've read against Taylor and it is pretty damning. You're right he has done things wrong.

Oh my God. I'm going to print this out and post it in big letters on my bulletin board! Just teasing, James. But honestly, I don't think I've ever heard you say something like that to me. Thank you! But I did my homework, and I know you're a stickler when it comes to having evidence to back up what you're saying, so I'm happy to have lived up to your standards on this. :P

And I do agree with you about the cherry-picking, etc. The case against Taylor isn't cut and dried, but I do find what I've read to be very disturbing. And what's most upsetting to me is what it says about Obama, and also Clinton/Gore. You know, everyone's going on these days about how the Dems. are bought and paid for and tied to corporate interests, etc. This kind of thing makes it very difficult to continue just saying yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah. It may be that Taylor will do a good job at the FDA. It may be that he's able to keep big-corporation interests out of FDA policies. But couldn't Obama have found someone who had never been in bed with a corporation like Monsanto, someone who more clearly sided with small farmers, organic (when feasible) farming, etc.? I just find this all very disturbing.

JamesAquila - February 4, 2012 03:28 PM (GMT)

QUOTE (earthmother @ Feb 3 2012, 06:52 PM)

Oh my God. I'm going to print this out and post it in big letters on my bulletin board! Just teasing, James. But honestly, I don't think I've ever heard you say something like that to me. Thank you! But I did my homework, and I know you're a stickler when it comes to having evidence to back up what you're saying, so I'm happy to have lived up to your standards on this. :P

Well even a broken clock is right twice a day. ;)

QUOTE (earthmother @ Feb 3 2012, 06:52 PM)

And I do agree with you about the cherry-picking, etc. The case against Taylor isn't cut and dried, but I do find what I've read to be very disturbing. And what's most upsetting to me is what it says about Obama, and also Clinton/Gore. You know, everyone's going on these days about how the Dems. are bought and paid for and tied to corporate interests, etc. This kind of thing makes it very difficult to continue just saying yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah. It may be that Taylor will do a good job at the FDA. It may be that he's able to keep big-corporation interests out of FDA policies. But couldn't Obama have found someone who had never been in bed with a corporation like Monsanto, someone who more clearly sided with small farmers, organic (when feasible) farming, etc.? I just find this all very disturbing.

It is. But unfortunately it seems how the world works. The article you posted was over 2 years old. I would like to know what Taylor has been doing since his appointment.

earthmother - February 4, 2012 04:24 PM (GMT)

Well, look it up and let us know!

If I have time, I'll see if I can find anything . . .

Texan for Gore - February 24, 2012 01:36 AM (GMT)

So much for transparency in this administration... and change for that matter. <_<

Despite requests made under the Freedom of Information Act for correspondence out of the White House, the Obama administration is refusing to comply with calls to disclose discussions with Monsanto-linked lobbyists.

The US-based non-profit group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) is demanding that the White House comply with a FOIA request for information that might link the Obama administration with lobbyists tied to the Monsanto corporation. Monsanto, an agricultural biotech company that rakes in billions each year, has become the enemy of independent farmers in recent years after the corporation has sued hundreds of small-time growers and, in many cases, purchased farms that are unable to compete in a court of law. As Monsanto’s profits grow and the group comes close to monopolizing the market for American agriculture, the company has at the same time thrived due its use of controversial genetically-engineered seeds.

Three-hundred thousands organic farmers across America are currently trying to take Monsanto to court to keep the corporation from continuing its war on independent growers. As a case is composed, the PEER group suspects that the White House’s refusal to comply with the FOIA request could be because Monsanto has some powerful friends on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Particularly, PEER is trying to pry correspondence that came into the inbox of a White House policy analyst from a lobbyist with the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), which represents Monsanto and other manufacturers of genetically-engineered seeds. The White House says that disclosing the full details of the email could give competing companies an advantage as lobbying secrets are unearthed for the world, but PEER thinks the truth is much worse than that.

"We suspect the reason an industry lobbyist so cavalierly shared strategy is that the White House is part of that strategy," PEER staff counsel Kathryn Douglass tells the Truthout website. "The White House's legal posture is as credible as claiming Coca Cola's secret formula was 'inadvertently' left in a duffel bag at the bus station."

Michael Taylor, a former attorney for the US Department of Agriculture and lobbyist for Monsanto, was recently appointed to a federal role as the deputy commissioner for foods at the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Since then, the FDA shot down requests from consumer protection groups to label genetically modified products as such. With a White House-Monsanto connection already established with the appointment of Taylor, PEER and others are interested in what other ties could exist between the two.

The inquiry from PEER stems from an earlier email obtained in which biotech lobbyist Adrianne Massey confronts a White House official with regards to if and how the administration is dealing with a lawsuit PEER had filed. In that instance, PEER had fought and won to keep genetically-engineered crops from being planted in wildlife refuges. PEER is now suing the White House for the rest of that correspondence and other related emails.

Wayne in WA State - February 24, 2012 06:21 PM (GMT)

QUOTE (Texan for Gore @ Feb 23 2012, 05:36 PM)

So much for transparency in this administration... and change for that matter. <_<

Yes, I suppose that's a sufficient reason to give up on the President and everything positive he has done and is still working on doing.

Texan for Gore - February 24, 2012 07:03 PM (GMT)

QUOTE (Wayne in WA State @ Feb 24 2012, 12:21 PM)

QUOTE (Texan for Gore @ Feb 23 2012, 05:36 PM)

So much for transparency in this administration... and change for that matter. <_<

Yes, I suppose that's a sufficient reason to give up on the President and everything positive he has done and is still working on doing.

When it comes to putting people into positions that directly affects the safety of our food, and when it comes to putting profit over people and things like signing the NDAA, I'd say those are pretty serious threats to our way of life, among other disappointing things. And there's so much more I don't even talk about here...but you can read plenty of disappointing stuff at the Current website.

I wouldn't say that I've completely given up on the President. I am just disappointed in a lot of things in politics these days. I wish I could say otherwise. :unsure: I do see an occasional glimmer of hope here and there, though that comes and goes too.

earthmother - February 24, 2012 09:39 PM (GMT)

I continue to be an Obama supporter and to applaud the many things he's managed to get done in this hostile political climate. But I do find it hard to explain why he has to have this tie to Monsanto. Weren't there other people who were equally qualified for this position who didn't think that the answer to contamination from GM seed to non-GM-seed crops could be answered by making the GM-seeds even more pesticide resistant? Obviously Taylor is on board with GM seed, massive use of pesticides and herbicides, and supports big agribusiness over small (and perhaps organic) farms. I would much rather have seen someone in that position who didn't have such close ties to agribusiness and a chemical giant like Monsanto. Much rather. And I find it hard to defend when discussing Obama with people who don't like what he's doing.

Texan for Gore - February 25, 2012 06:19 PM (GMT)

When politicians fight for what's right, I have no problem giving credit where credit it due. Unfortunately these days, I think the important arguments get lost in the left/right partisan arguing. And don't get me wrong, I believe that democrats are the ones who have fought for people's rights more than anybody else, but it seems like things have started gradually changing over the past 30 years, with the power that corporations wield in elections and policy making. I've just become more aware of this in the last few years.

EM, you mentioned earlier in this thread that you were upset to learn what this Monsanto issue says about Obama, Clinton and Gore. As far as Gore goes, since he was not President, I don't think he is responsible for Monsanto related people being placed in government positions. But look at this chart. It certainly gives food for thought in how many government people have Monsanto ties. <_<

I have to say, it's pretty disturbing to me. It's hard to believe that this is just coincidental. And this is not just directed at Obama. Look at all the Monsanto ties in previous administrations....

It's just like the problems I have with the TSA screenings at airports. Despite this being a violation of our fourth amendment rights, I can't count the number of times I've heard people say, if you don't like it, then don't fly. My problem is if this is accepted, then where does the infringement end? As an example, I was disturbed recently to learn someone had been arrested here in our county on a drug case by law enforcement going through their garbage after it had been picked up by the garbage man. :wtf: What's wrong with this picture? Of course, I don't like drug trafficking going on anywhere but if law enforcement can obtain evidence illegally, what else will they do? The attorney in this case should have pressed for a motion to suppress evidence hearing, but in the end, the client pleaded out.

And you have people like Michael Chernoff, Bush's ex-Homeland Security boss, who have ties with the scanners. Here's one such article that talks about it.

And I could go on about things, such as Coca-cola obtaining water rights in poor countries, with the help of the IMF, etc. but I think I'll save that for another thread/day.

earthmother - February 25, 2012 06:28 PM (GMT)

Wow. Mostly Dems. on that list of Monsanto ties with gov't. Very disturbing. Now, it's possible that in some of those cases maybe those people were the best qualified for the job, but are there really not people out there who are qualified but who don't have ties to a chemical giant? It's hard to believe.

Texan for Gore - February 25, 2012 06:36 PM (GMT)

QUOTE (earthmother @ Feb 25 2012, 12:28 PM)

Wow. Mostly Dems. on that list of Monsanto ties with gov't. Very disturbing. Now, it's possible that in some of those cases maybe those people were the best qualified for the job, but are there really not people out there who are qualified but who don't have ties to a chemical giant? It's hard to believe.

Yeah, I was pretty shocked to see that too, and so many under Clinton's admin. And yes, I agree that it's possible that some were the best qualified, but it is still unsettling, to say the least.

We could literally spend our whole lives finding faults with people on the good side, trying to do the best they can. You got to pick your battles. We can't fix everything all at once, not even close. When the Republicans are literally denying climate change and wanting to roll back the modest wall street and health care reforms that have been accomplished, we need to keep perspective.

What's wrong with building on the positive instead of constantly finding fault?

:?:

JamesAquila - February 28, 2012 12:05 PM (GMT)

QUOTE (Wayne in WA State @ Feb 28 2012, 12:56 AM)

We could literally spend our whole lives finding faults with people on the good side, trying to do the best they can. You got to pick your battles. We can't fix everything all at once, not even close. When the Republicans are literally denying climate change and wanting to roll back the modest wall street and health care reforms that have been accomplished we need to keep perspective.

What's wrong with building on the positive instead of constantly finding fault?

:?:

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Texan for Gore - February 28, 2012 03:55 PM (GMT)

QUOTE (Wayne in WA State @ Feb 27 2012, 11:56 PM)

We could literally spend our whole lives finding faults with people on the good side, trying to do the best they can. You got to pick your battles. We can't fix everything all at once, not even close. When the Republicans are literally denying climate change and wanting to roll back the modest wall street and health care reforms that have been accomplished we need to keep perspective.

What's wrong with building on the positive instead of constantly finding fault?

:?:

Constantly finding fault? :?: It's not a matter of finding fault, Wayne. It's simply looking at the reality of the situation. Big corporations rule. Monsanto. Big oil. The pharmaceutical companies. Health insurance. Big banks. Coca-cola. You name it. How often do you see white collar crime prosecuted? Btw, have you heard about prisons being turned into "for profit" prisons? :wtf:

And which people on the good side would you be talking about? From where I'm standing, most of them seem to side with the corporations a large percentage of the time. There are a few good fighters but their voices are just a ripple in a sea of corruption. You said yourself that even a constitutional amendment would be extremely difficult to pass. And the SCOTUS lost credibility with me after they denied Gore the election, so is it really any wonder they've come up with a corrupt ruling that corporations are people? Oh, except when it's convenient for the corporations such as in this instance:

And Wayne, I picked this battle with Monsanto because I happened to think it was a very important battle to fight, as they control about 80% of the food market. But, one could readily pick a battle with any of the dominating corporations and you would still lose.

I don't expect things to be fixed all at once. But there are so many critical things that matter and can't afford a one step forward, 10-20 steps back approach. This Monsanto issue is one of them. They are poisoning our foods, contaminating our soil and killing a way of life for many farmers and affecting our ability to be independent and self-sufficient. So now that the farmers' lawsuit has been dismissed, does that mean Monsanto will go back to suing farmers' whose crops get contaminated by Monsanto crops through no fault of their own? :?:

I acknowledge that republicans are a very destructive lot. Honestly, I can't even stand listening to them in the debates or this primary season. It's just a joke. They don't care about serving the people, only their corporate masters/partners. But, I can't deny that democrats take huge sums of money from corporations too. And look at the revolving door between Monsanto and our government, as well as other corporations. But, the left-right arguments are just a distraction from the important issues. And as long as we're all entrenched in that argument and remain divisive, progress is just a distant dream.

I would love to be building on the positive and I do try to find the silver lining in an otherwise corrupt world, but it gets increasingly harder not to feel despair, especially when you see those trying to do good (OWS) being shut down at every corner. :(

Wayne in WA State - February 28, 2012 04:25 PM (GMT)

QUOTE (Texan for Gore @ Feb 28 2012, 07:55 AM)

I would love to be building on the positive and I do try to find the silver lining in an otherwise corrupt world, but it gets increasingly harder not to feel despair, especially when you see those trying to do good (OWS) being shut down at every corner. :(

Looking at the world as basically corrupt and bad with just a few silver linings here and there is what I mean by constantly finding fault.

There world is full of so many things good and bad, that there's too much good and too much bad for any of us to pay attention to more than a tiny sliver of what's out there. Personally, I believe there's more good than bad in human beings. What makes us upset all the time is listening to or reading the damn news. What we are fed as "the news" is basically a collection of all the negative, horrifying and shocking information that someone can put into print. Personally, I've found I can't just read the news that way. I have to keep my sanity. I try to keep a hopeful and positive outlook. I attempt to communicate something that will encourage people, make them smile, or make them believe in themselves just a little bit more.

A litany of everything wrong with politics, or any other field; I mean, what's the point?

:Y:

"Education and knowledge by themselves do not bring inner peace to individuals, families or the society in which they live. But education combined with warmheartedness, a sense of concern for the well-being of others, has much more positive results. If you have a great deal of knowledge, but you're governed by negative emotions, then you tend to use your knowledge in negative ways. Therefore, while you are learning, don't forget the importance of warmheartedness." -Dalai Lama 2012

Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.Learn More · Register Now